Connecticut v. Teal’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
646 federal appellate · 170 district · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,507 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably Wayte v. United States (1985), Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust (1988)
646 federal appellate · 170 district · 62 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
Cited together with Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1,507 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a manifest relationship to the employment in question,”
28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is clear that Congress never intended to give an employer license to discriminate against some employees on the basis of race or sex merely because he favorably treats other members of the employees' group.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.